Proposal talk:Organic

exclusive vs. only

Resolved: exclusive changed to only --Flaimo 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The diet:*=* keys use the value "only". Unless there is a particular reason to use "exclusive", I suggest that this proposal should also use "only". --Tordanik 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

so far there are only a handful of occurrences of "only" (according to taginfo). maybe a native speaker could give some input which term would be better --Flaimo 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 I agree with this proposal. "only" is good choice. But little difference between "exclusive". Hawkeyes 23:56, 14 January 2012

+1 I also support unifying only and exclusive -- Dieterdreist 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "regular basis"

Resolved: changed definition of yes value --Flaimo 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The current definition of yes is: "The shop or restaurant offers products on a regular basis where some of them are organic, but not all." What is a "regular basis" in the context of the range of a shop? You don't need this, it makes stuff unnecessarily complicated (the mapper would have to investigate the "regular" basis). -- Dieterdreist 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

what i actually mean with "on a regular basis" is, that the shop must offer fair trade/organic products all the time and not just for certain periods (like described for the "no" value) --Flaimo 00:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What about changing it to something like "usually offers some organic/fair-trade products". I think that would be clearer. --Vclaw 01:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"yes" and "no" are too close/blurry

Resolved: refined the descriptions --Flaimo 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am in favour of this proposal, I see (even with the changes above in place) a huge problem to decide for shops being organic=yes or no. In my area all supermarkets offer some organic products, even the ones I'd consider most "non-organic". And the ones having a good "organic reputation" offer some non-organic food as well. So following the definition on the main page, I'd have to tag all shops with organic=yes, which renders the proposal unfortunately next to useless. (Also, edit wars seem inevitable.) There should be a better way to estimate "the percentage of the assortment being organic", something like organic=80%. I know that's tough, but at least verifyable in theory. --Kay D 00:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

while that may be the case in your country/area, that all supermarkets offer some organic products, other countries may not have any "normal" supermarkets which offer an organic product line. a person which is looking for an shop specialized on "organic only" would filter for the value "only" anyway. on the other hand, i can't see too much benefit in mapping a percentage value, also because hardly anyone can estimate the correct value without knowing the whole assortment of the shop (not just the one visible to the customer). but you could do that in addition with the key "fair_trade:percentage", or something like that, if you like. --Flaimo 09:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be picky, but if I'd search for an "organic only" shop, I wouldn't get any results because next to all organic shops also sell (a few) non-organic things. Maybe it would be enough to change the definition to "almost all" and "almost none" etc. --Kay D 16:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

i rewrote the descriptions a bit and gave some examples for organic=only supermarkets. --Flaimo 14:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)